Communications Decency Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, for almost 25 years, the internet has grown and thrived under the light-touch regulatory framework established by the Communications Decency Act. I hope we can continue that. I think some changes need to be made.

Passed in 1996, the law that the Communications Decency Act is a part of helped create the internet. Section 230 of that law gives broad liability protections to interactive computer services, such as Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms. This provision protects online platforms from being held liable for content posted by their users.

This is a unique protection for online platforms, and not everyone in our country enjoys those protections. For example, newspapers do not enjoy this important protection. But we have done this for internet platforms.

At the same time, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act allows online platforms to censor content that they--the platforms-- consider obscene, lewd, harassing, along with several other categories, including the term ``otherwise objectionable.''

I am concerned that this term, ``otherwise objectionable,'' is too broad and ends up protecting online platforms when they remove content that they simply disagree with or dislike or find distasteful personally.

I fear section 230 has enabled big tech companies to censor conservative views and voices, and I am joined by a lot of Americans in that view. As such, this provision has become a loophole for censoring free speech, and it risks negating the values at the very heart of our First Amendment.

In the last few years, reports of online censorship of conservative viewpoints have grown more frequent. In early 2018, for example, an undercover report exposed Twitter for systematically ``shadow banning'' conservative profiles--meaning users were blocked from the platform without being notified.

More recently, Google threatened to demonetize a conservative news site, The Federalist, for not removing offensive content in their comment section. Based upon information I received, the comments may indeed have been derogatory and unacceptable. But what is noteworthy is that Google's threat toward the Federalist was hyperselective and a bit hypocritical. Google held the Federalist accountable for comments made by the Federalist readers, but Google does not want to be held responsible for the posts or comments by users on Google's platforms, including YouTube--a double standard imposed by Google itself. This selective scrutiny reveals what most Americans already believe: that tech companies are politically biased.

According to a 2018 Pew study, 7 out of 10 Americans believed social media companies censor political viewpoints that they find objectionable. That was 2 years ago. It has only worsened in the 2 years since then.

These concerns come at a time when tech companies wield unprecedented power within our economy and our culture at large, and no one can deny that. A bipartisan chorus of committee members from the other body pointed this out just last week. More and more of our daily business is taking place online, and that trend is only accelerating during the current pandemic.

As we near the 2020 election, Americans have serious concerns about whether online platforms will treat campaigns on both sides of the aisle fairly and equally. Those concerns are warranted. I have those concerns. Americans are right to be worried about interference by politically homogenous tech firms that hold unprecedented sway over our Nation's political discourse.

After 24 years, it is time for Congress to revisit section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and start with refining--perhaps narrowing-- the scope of what counts as otherwise objectionable content subject to censors. There may be other reforms that would be better, but I think it is time for Congress and the committee that I chair to revisit this section of the law.

Last week, the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation, and the Internet convened a hearing to consider exactly this issue, and it was a very good hearing. As chairman of the Commerce Committee, I intend to pursue this matter thoroughly and evaluate what changes are needed to section 230. Congress needs to ensure that the internet remains a forum for a ``true diversity of political discourse'' that promotes competition and innovation.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source